Arakit Mary Margaret V The Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-CS-0699-2003 ) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0699-2003)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The High Court held that the plaintiff did not validly join the Public Service because her appointment was procured through a forged corrigendum issued by an interdicted Public Service Commission officer. The court ruled that the appointment was a nullity, the deletion from the payroll was lawful, and the plaintiff was not entitled to reinstatement, salary arrears, pension, or damages.
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for reinstatement and arrears dismissed; deletion from payroll upheld as lawful
Facts
The plaintiff entered Public Service as Accounts Assistant in February 1991 pursuant to an appointment letter referencing PSC Minute 1049 of 1990. Her name was deleted from the payroll in August 2002. The defendant alleged she entered service illegally. The Public Service Commission's Minute 1049 of 1990 and its only authorised corrigendum (Corrigenda IV) did not contain the plaintiff's name. A separate corrigendum bearing the plaintiff's name was issued by one Rwabushaija, a Principal Personnel Officer who was subsequently interdicted and dismissed with disgrace in 1992 for forgeries. The plaintiff's appointment letter was cancelled in August 1991 by the Ministry of Finance, but she remained in service. In 1994, a fake PSC letter purported to reinstate her. In 1998, a forged posting instruction transferred her to the Judiciary. The Commission's 1997 review identified the plaintiff among 'ghost employees' who entered service without PSC authority, leading to her eventual deletion from the payroll in 2002.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff validly joined Public Service.
- Whether the plaintiff's name was validly removed from the payroll.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Each side to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Evidence Act Cap.6 s.103
Cases cited (3)
- Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank ([1994-95] HCB 54)
- Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 116
- Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.